Karnataka High Court
Rudrashetty Patil Since Deceased By Lrs ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 13 April, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
M.S.A. NO.200014/2016 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
Rudrashety Patil Since deceased by LR's
1. Karisiddappa S/o Late Rudrashetty Patil
Age:71 years
2. Tejirao S/o Late Rudrashetty Patil
Age:65 years
3. Karabasappa S/o Late Rudrashetty Patil
Age:61 years
4. Shivashankar S/o Late Rudrashetty Patil
Age:57 years
5. Basawaraj S/o Late Rudrashetty Patil
since expired on 16.4.2016 by LRs.
5(A) Smt. Indu Patil @ Indumati
W/o. Late Basawaraj, Age: 47 years,
Occ: Agriculture/Household
5(B) Vishal S/o. Late Basawaraj
Age: 17 years, minor,
U/g of 5(a) Smt. Indu Patil @ Indumati
Natural Mother, Occ: Student
2
Both R/o. H.No.E/7/2978/B.E/7/2935
to E/7/3075, Bank Colony, KHB Colony,
Gulbarga.
6. Gurupadappa S/o Rudrashetty Patil
Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
All Occ: Agriculture, R/o Harsoor village,
Tq. Dist. Kalaburagi - 585101.
... Appellants
(By Sri S. S. Sajjanashetty, Advocate)
AND:
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
M & MIP Gulbarga, Room No.7,
Mini Vidhan Soudha,
Kalaburagi - 585101.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Mini Vidhan Soudha,
Kalaburagi - 585101.
3. The Executive Engineer,
KNNL, Bennetora Project,
Hebbal Division, Tq. Chittapur,
Dist. Kalaburagi.
... Respondents
(Smt. Archana P.Tiwari, AGA for R1 & R2;
Sri Gourish S.Kashanpur, Advocate for R3)
This MSA filed under Section 54(2) of Land Acquisition
Act,1894 praying to modify the judgement and award
dated:16.10.2014 passed by the III Addl. District Judge at
Gulbarga in LAC-Appeal No.399/2013 vide Annexure-A and
3
pleased to modify by allowing the appeal by enhancing the
compensation at Rs.1,24,293/- per acre Dry land from
Rs.67,000/- per acre as awarded by the 1st Appellate Court,
with all statutory benefits.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement against the judgment and award dated 15.10.2014 made in LAC Appeal No.399/2013 on the file of the III Addl. District Judge, Kalaburagi allowing the appeal in part awarding compensation of Rs.67,000/- per acre as against Rs.32,000/- per acre awarded by the reference Court with all statutory benefits denying the interest for the delayed period of 5629 days in filing the appeal before the lower appellate Court.
2. It is the case of the appellants that the land bearing Sy.No.153 measuring 12 acres 28 guntas of 4 Harsoor village of Kalaburagi taluka and district was acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Section 4(1) of Land Aquisition Act for the purpose of Bennetora project by notification dated 6.8.1992 followed by the final notification and the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 31.5.1994 fixing compensation of Rs.9,000/- per acre. Being not satisfied with the award, the claimants have filed protest petition under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Officer for reference. On being reference made, the reference Court considering the material on record has awarded compensation of Rs.32,000/- per acre for dry land with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants filed LAC Appeal No.399/2013 before the III Addl. District Judge, Kalaburagi who after hearing both parties by the impugned judgment and award fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.67,000/- per acre for dry 5 land. Hence, the present appeal is filed for further enhancement.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri S.S.Sajjanashetty, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that the judgment and award passed by the lower appellate Court fixing the market value at Rs.67,000/- per acre for dry land is on lower side, contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the lower appellate Court while determining the compensation failed to take notice that the land of the claimants is fertile land consisting of deep black cotton soil in which the appellants used to fetch two crops such as Hingaari and Mungaari with fodder for cattle at the cost of 15-20% cost of cultivation during Kharif and Rabbi season respectively. Therefore, the market value of the land of the claimants has to be enhanced. Both the reference Court as well as lower 6 appellate Court have failed to take into consideration the fertility and not made the assessment in terms of the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. He would further contend that this Court in the case of Kalappa -Vs.- Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Another made in MSA No.200014/2018 (LAC) in respect of notification issued in the year 1991 for the same project has determined the compensation of Rs.1,52,059/- with 8% escalation. Therefore, if the same is applied in the present case, the appellants would entitled for compensation of Rs.1,76,388/- per acre. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the lower appellate Court.
5. Per contra, Smt. Archana Tiwari, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Gourish S.Khashampur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 sought to justify the impugned judgment and award 7 passed by the lower appellate Court and would contend that in the absence of both oral and documentary evidence on record, the lower appellate Court was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.67,000/- per acre for dry land. They would further contend that the Land Acquisition Officer, Reference Court and lower appellate Court considering the entire material on record and considering the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Officer determined just and reasonable compensation. The counsel for the respondents have not disputed the fact that in case Kalappa Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and another relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court in respect of same project notification for the year 1991 has determined compensation of Rs.1,52,059/- for dry land.
6. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is clear that the land of the appellants has been acquired 8 by the respondents for Bennetora Project under a preliminary notification dated 6.8.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.9,000/- per acre for dry land. The reference Court on being reference made has fixed Rs.32,200/- per acre for dry land and the lower appellate Court after reconsidering the entire material on record has awarded compensation of Rs.67,000/- per acre. It is also not in dispute that, in an identical circumstance in respect of adjoining village for the same purpose, but notification issued in the year 1991 and notification issued in the present case in 1992, this Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1,52,059/- with 8% escalation in respect of 1991 notification. If we award the same amount with 8% escalation on the said ground, the appellants/claimants would be entitled to Rs.1,76,388/- per acre for dry land.
7. It is an undisputed fact that large extent of lands were acquired by the respondents for Bennetora 9 project by issuing notification on different years and there cannot be any discrimination between the claimants whose lands were acquired for the same purpose. This Court has taken a view that for 1991 notification the claimants are entitled Rs.1,64,223/- per acre with 8% escalation, the appellants/claimants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.1,76,388/- per acre for dry land. Admittedly, the judgment and award passed by the by this Court in case of Kalappa Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & another made in MSA No.200014/2018 on 21.02.2018 has reached finality.
8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is allowed with cost and all statutory benefits and the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,76,388/- per acre with all statutory benefits.
10
9. However, it is made clear that the appellants are not entitled for any interest for the period of delay occurred before the lower appellate Court as already ordered by the impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2014 and the claimants are also not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 399 days in filing the present appeal.
10. Eight weeks time is granted to the appellants/claimants to pay deficit court fee if any in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE NSP